COEVOLUTIONARY SEMANTICS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION GENESIS AND EVOLUTIONARY RISK (BETWEEN THE BIOAESTHETICS AND BIOPOLITICS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i10.87155Keywords:
biopower, biopolitics, High Hume technology, an evolutionary risk, neuroaesthetics, coevolutionary semantics of anthropogenesisAbstract
Purpose (metatask) of the present work is to attempt to give a glance at the problem of existential and anthropological risk caused by the contemporary man-made civilization from the perspective of comparison and confrontation of aesthetics, the substrate of which is emotional and metaphorical interpretation of individual subjective values and politics feeding by objectively rational interests of social groups. In both cases there is some semantic gap present between the represented social reality and its representation in perception of works of art and in the political doctrines as well. Methodology of the research is evolutionary anthropological comparativistics. Originality of the conducted analysis comes to the following: As the antithesis to biological and social reductionism in interpretation of the phenomenon of bio-power it is proposed a co-evolutionary semantic model in accordance with which the described semantic gap is of the substantial nature related to the complex module organization of a consistent and adaptive human strategy consisting of three associated but independently functional modules (genetic, cultural and techno-rational). Evolutionary trajectory of all anthropogenesis components including civilization cultural and social-political evolution is identified by the proportion between two macro variables – evolutionary effectiveness and evolutionary stability (sameness), i.e. preservation in the context of consequential transformations of some invariants of Homo sapiens species specificity organization. It should be noted that inasmuch as in respect to human, some modules of the evolutionary (adaptive) strategy assume self-reflection attributes, it would be more correctly to state about evolutionary correctness, i.e. correspondence to some perfection. As a result, the future of human nature depends not only on the rationalist principles of ethics of Homo species (the archaism of Jurgen Habermas), but also on the holistic and emotionally aesthetic image of «Self». In conclusion it should be noted that there is a causal link between the development of High Hume (NBIC) technologies and the totality of the trend in the anthropological phenomenon of bio-power that permeates all the available human existence in modern civilization. As a result, there is a transformation of a contemporary social (man-made) risk in the evolutionary civilization risk.
References
Malinovskiy B. Nauchnaya teoriya kultury [The scientific theory of culture]. Moscow, OGI Publ., 2005. 184 p.
Markus G. Nesovershennyy chelovek. Sluchaynost evolyutsii mozga i yeye posledstviya [Imperfect man: Accidental of brain evolution and its consequences]. Moscow, Alpina non-fikshn Publ., 2011. 255 p.
Moiseyev N.N. Sudba tsivilizatsii. Put razuma [The fate of civilization. Path of mind]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoy kultury Publ., 2000. 360 p.
Pelipenko A.A. Logotsentrizm i logotsentrik (nachalo) [Logocentrism and logocentric (beginning)]. Kultura kultury – Culture of culture, 2015, no. 4 (8). Available at : http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/logotsentrizm-i-logotsentrik-nachalo (Accessed 16 November 2016).
Pelipenko A. A. Osobennosti sotsiokulturnoy evolyutsii [Features of social and cultural evolution]. Kultura kultury – Culture of culture, 2016, no. 1 (9), pp. 29-34.
Popper K.R. Otkrytoye obschestvo i yego vragi v 2-kh t. [The open society and its enemies in two volumes]. Moscow, Feniks Publ., 1992. vol. 1, 448 p.; vol. 2, 524 p.
Cheshko V.F. Stabilnaya adaptivnaya strategiya Homo sapiens. Biopoliticheskiye alternativyi. Problema Boga [Stable adaptive strategy of Homo sapiens. Biopolitical alternatives. God's problem]. Kharkiv, ID «INZhEK» Publ., 2012. 596 p.
Cheshko V.T., Glazko V.I. High Hume (Biovlast i biopolitika v obschestve riska) [High Hume (Biopower and biopolitics in a risk society)]. Moscow, RGAU-MSKHA im. K. A. Timiryazeva Publ., 2009. 319 p.
Cheshko V.F., Kuz O.M. Biovlada i biopolityka: antropolohichnyi ta sotsiopolitychnyi vymir tekhnohumanitarnoho balansu [Biopower and biopolitics: anthropological and socio-political dimensions of techno-humanitarian balance]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats “Hileia” [Proc. “Hileya”], 2016, issue 107, pp. 267-272.
Nielsen R., Bustamante C., Clark A.G. A Scan for Positively Selected Genes in the Genomes of Humans and Chimpanzees. PLOS Biology, 2005, vol. 3, no. 6. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030170 (Accessed 16 November 2016). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030170
Ankersmit F.R. Aesthetic politics: political philosophy beyond fact and value. Stanford, University Press Publ., 1996. 415 p.
Beauchamp J. Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. BioRxiv, 2016. Available at: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/05/037929 (Accessed 16 November 2016). doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600398113
Chiao Joan Y., Blizinsky Katherine D. Culture–gene coevolution of individualism–collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proc. Royal. Soc., ser. B, 2010, vol. 277, pp. 529-537. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1650
Chudek M., Henrich J. Culture-gene coevolution, normpsychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2011, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 218-226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.003
Rosenquist J.N., Lehrer S., O’Malley A.J., Zaslavsky A.M., Smoller J.W., Nicholas A. Christakis N.A. Cohort of birth modifies the association between FTO genotype and BMI. PNAS, 2015, no. 112 (2), pp. 354-359. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/gca?gca=pnas%3B112%2F2%2F354&allch=&submit=Go (Accessed 16 November 2016).
Conway B. R., Livingstone M.S. Perspectives on science and art. Current opinion in neurobiology, 2007, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 476-482.
Danchin E. Avatars of information towards an inclusive evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2013, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 351-358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.02.010
Dawkins R. The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene. Oxford, Univ. Press Publ., 1999. 313 p.
Settle J. E., Dawes C.T., Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. Friendships Moderate an Association between a Dopamine Gene Variant and Political Ideology. The Journal of Politics, 2010, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1189-1198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381610000617
Okbay A. Beauchamp Jonathan P., Fontana Mark Alan, Lee James J., Pers Tune H., Rietveld Cornelius A., Turley Patrick, Chen Guo-Bo, Emilsson Valur, Meddens S. Fleur W., Oskarsson Sven, Pickrell Joseph K., Thom Kevin, Timshel Pascal, de Vlaming Ronald, Abdellaoui Abdel, Ahluwalia Tarunveer S., Bacelis Jonas, Baumbach Clemens, Bjornsdottir Gyda, Brandsma Johannes H., Concas Maria Pina, Derringer Jaime, Furlotte Nicholas A., Galesloot Tessel E. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature, 2016, vol. 533, no. 7604, pp. 539-542. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17671
Kapitza S.P. Global population blowup and after the demographic revolution and information society. Hamburg, Global Marshall Plan Initiative Publ., 2006. 272 p.
Shinobu Kitayama, Jiyoung Park. Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2010, vol. 5, no. 2-3, pp. 111-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq052
Leonardi M. P. Gerbault, M.G.T., Burger J. The evolution of lactase persistence in Europe. A synthesis of archaeological and genetic evidence. International Dairy Journal, 2012, vol. 22, pp. 88-97.
Livingstone M. S. Is it warm? Is it real? Or just low spatial frequency? Science, 2000, vol. 290, no. 5495. pp. 1299-1299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5495.1299b
Livingstone M.S. Vision and art (updated and expanded edition). N.Y., Abrams Publ., 2014. 240 p.
Mameli M. Non genetic selection and non genetic inheritance. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2004, vol. 55, pp. 35-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/55.1.35
McKay R.T., Dennett D.C. The evolution of misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2009, vol. 32, pp. 493-561. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09990975
Mark J.T., Marion B.B., Hoffman D.D. Natural selection and veridical perceptions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2010, vol. 266, no. 4, pp. 504-515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.07.020
Reisman K., Forber P. Manipulation and the Causes of Evolution. Philosophy of Science, 2005, vol. 72, issue. 5, pp. 1113-1123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/508120
Schinka J.A., Letsch E.A., Crawford F.C. DRD4 and Novelty Seeking: Results of Meta-Analyses. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2002 , vol. 114, pp. 643-648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10649
Cheshko V.T., Glazko V.I., Kosovsky G.Yu., Peredyadenko A.S. Stable Adaptive Strategy of Homo Sapiens and Evolutionary Risk of High Tech. Transdisciplinary essay. Moscow, New Publ. Tech., 2015. 252 p. Available at : http://philpapers.org/rec/CHESAS-2 (Accessed 16 November 2016).
Sterelny K. The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique. Cambridge, MIT Press Publ., 2012. 264 p. doi: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262016797.001.0001
Benjamin D.J., Cesarini D., van der Loos M.J. H.M. The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 109, no. 21, pp. 8026-8031. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120666109
Hardy K., Brand-Miller J., Brown K.D., Thomas M.G., Copeland L. The importance of dietary carbohydrate in human evolution. The Quarterly review of biology, 2015, vol. 90, issue 3, pp. 251-268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/682587
Waal F.B.M.De. The Antiquity of Empathy. Science, 2012, vol. 336, no. 6083, pp. 874-876. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1220999
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
